Currently, the idea seems to be that platforms and specific assets will be voted on for inclusion in the yield swapping platform, with V1 being introduced with a set number of pre-defined yield assets.
As a community, we are awaiting the publication of the V1 smart contracts; however, prior to this it might be worth proposing that we:
- Take a Uniswap-esque permissionless approach versus a Bancor/Kyber-esque permissioned approach to the listing of yield assets. I remember a time when Bancor and Kyber had much higher trade volumes than Uniswap. Uniswap won (by a looooong shot) in part because anyone could add their assets there… and because it was dead simple. From a user experience adoption perspective, I believe that when anyone creates a new yield or rewards program for a token, they should be able to independently add it to APWine, so that their users can join our platform and swap that yield. This can and will lead to MASSSIVE adoption. Otherwise, if someone else does this permissionlessly and we do not, we will lose this race imho. We have time, but competitors will likely be moving fast.
- From a security perspective, point #1 can be a bit difficult; however, it is achievable. To compartmentalize risk if that is not on the current Layer1 roadmap, I propose that on L2 (Optimism and zkSync) and sidechains (Matic), we have separate contracts deployed per user or transaction so that all users’ funds aren’t stored in a single point of failure contract and we don’t run into issues with APPROVE and draining etc.
Further, for more massive adoption, it might certainly be worth it to launch V1 on both L1 and L2/sidechain as that just makes sense these days.